Tag: conference/workshop

Addressing Mobilities Controversies through Public Participation?

In a presentation at the C-MUS Congress 2024 in Aalborg (Denmark), Katharina Holec, Laura Mark and Tobias Escher presented selected recommendations for managing planning conflicts in the context of the transport transition.

These recommendations are derived from various research findings from the CIMT project. They are based on quantitative data from surveys of more than 2,000 people and qualitative data from more than 20 interviews on various mobility planning processes in three German cities, as well as a quantitative analysis of the participation landscape in Germany based on an extensive database of over 350 transport-related participation processes that we have compiled.

Recommendations

For the presentation, the following two recommendations were selected from those developed to date and presented for discussion:

It is not the role of a consultation to reach a consensus!

This is derived from the fundamentally conflictual nature of transport planning, which is also reflected in our data and could not be satisfactorily resolved by the participation formats analysed. For example, in the freiRaum Ottensen project, despite extensive participation, 21% of participants were still dissatisfied with the decision made, and 74% of the population were not even aware of the opportunity to participate. This means that the aim should not be to resolve conflicts, but to create a forum for dialogue and the generation of ideas, and that participation should not be judged by the degree of conflict resolution.

Consultation results must be complemented with other perspectives in order to come to a balanced decision!

Participation results can provide a picture of existing concerns and should be taken seriously, but firstly they do not reflect the general mood of the population due to their lack of representativeness, and secondly it cannot be assumed that all important aspects for the mobility transition are included or that mainly supportive contributions are made. This means that consultations should be supplemented by other forms of participation. Participation results should be supplemented and weighed up with other perspectives from different stakeholder spheres and cannot replace a bold political decision.

Presentation and publication

We are currently working on a compilation of these and other empirically based recommendations for the use of participation in the transport transition. This publication will be linked here once it has been finalised. The presentation can be downloaded here:

CIMT C-MUS 2024Herunterladen

Results of our research in Hamburg-Ottensen: Final presentation

In a joint meeting with representatives of the district office Altona in Hamburg on 7 December 2023, the research group presented the results of the data collection in connection with the freiRaum Ottensen project. FreiRaum Ottensen was one of the five projects in which surveys and interviews were conducted. The focus was on the public consultations in which the general public was able to participate. More information on the project freiRaum Ottensen and the participation formats carried out can be found here.

Selected results

  • The population in Ottensen largely perceives a need for improvement in transport and is relatively positive about the transport transition overall.
  • Around 50% of the population have heard about the participation process for freiRaum Ottensen, and around 16% have taken part. In comparison with other processes, these are relatively high figures, although the usual over-representation of people with high school diploma, men and older people can be seen despite a wide varieties of participation formats offered to different target groups.
  • The discussion during the different participation formats was perceived as constructive and respectful, although conflicts and gaps in the representation of all interests were acknowledged.
  • In this project, the policy process was comparatively open to citizens and participants were able to shape the content of the planning outcome.
  • For around a third of the population and half of the participants, the participation process had an influence on their satisfaction with the district authority. However, this influence was not always positive: for example, one in four participants was more satisfied with the district authority at the end, but just as many reported less satisfaction.
  • Two thirds of the population rated the adopted measures as positive.
  • (Statements on the population generally refer to the subgroup of people with a high school diploma – see detailed information on the representativeness of the surveys)

Download

The detailed presentation is available in German.

Inclusivity, transparency and policy effects – procedural justice through participation?

In a presentation at the annual congress of AESOP (Assosiation of European Schools of Planning) in 2023, Katharina Holec, Laura Mark and Tobias Escher presented results from a consultative participation procedure. Key question was whether the procedure could contribute to procedural justice.

Summary

Consultative participation is a frequently used tool to correct traditional inequalities in planning. It is often used to negotiate conflicts relevant to everyday life. Citizens are encouraged to express their interests and ideas. In addition, local administrations expect an increase in legitimacy beliefs among citizens through including them into processes. Procedural justice can be seen as an important aspect of the desired increase in acceptance. The underrepresentation of certain socio-economic groups in the input of consultative participation is one of the main challenges for procedural justice.

Our example is one of the case studies, which we have accompanied scientifically over the last years. Using a mixed methods we investigate the contribution that the procedure makes to procedural justice. We conceptualize this describing the relevance of the aspects inclusivity, transparency and policy effects of a consultative procedure.

Although inclusivity was the declared goal of the organizers it is hardly achieved in the input of the process – that is, in the question of who participates. Things look somewhat more positive when observing the throughput. Discussions were well organized and were also perceived positively by citizens. If we look at the evaluation of the transparency of the process itself, i.e. the throughput, the participants rated it positively. There are limitations in the evaluation of the transparency of the result and the communication after the process. A policy effect exists and is primarily perceived by the participants. However, the policy effect is limited to non-essential issues of the process.

Key findings

  • While the consultation process was organized aiming at an overrepresentation of specific marginalized groups, it fails to include lower educated and non-male individuals. The assessment of throughput inclusivity is more positive.
  • The consultation process was carried out with timely publication of the results of the individual procedural steps and is also perceived as transparent overall with few differences between different social groups. People with disabilities are somewhat more critical. The assessment of the transparency of the results is somewhat more negative.
  • Effects on political decision-making can be found in the fact that the process strengthened and supported the progressive ideas of the administration. Influences of participation existed but were mainly relevant for specific issues, such as the location of bike paths or bus stops not a general direction.
  • These effects are more strongly perceived by participants.

The Structure and Antecedents of Citizens’ Perceptions of Local Democracy: Findings from a Survey in Different German Cities in 2021

Abstract

Legitimacy is the voluntary recognition of political authority, which plays an important role in the stability and governance of political systems. At the system level, it is strongly conditioned by individual legitimacy attitudes at the micro level. The goal of our presentation is to illustrate and understand

  • How different objects of political support are constructed and interrelated (trust, satisfaction, and legitimacy beliefs)?
  • How strongly local and national political attitudes toward objects influence each other?
  • What individual factors ultimately influence local and national legitimacy beliefs?

To measure these relationships, we used survey data collected in the project to first operationalize the constructs of satisfaction with authority, trust in institutions, and legitimacy attitudes at the local and national levels. Methodologically, we use a confirmatory factor analysis and OLS regression.

Key Findings

  • Higher satisfaction with local than with national authorities, and greater trust in local than in national institutions, while mean differences in legitimacy attitudes vary
  • Strong correlations between the concepts of trust and satisfaction and legitimacy beliefs
  • Strong correlations between local and national levels for trust, satisfaction, and legitimacy beliefs
  • Hardly any systematic influences by individual factors on legitimacy beliefs when controlling for satisfaction and trust as influences on legitimacy

CAIS Working Group: AI in digital public participation

As participants in a workshop organised by the Center for Advanced Internet Studies (CAIS) in Bochum, Julia Romberg and Tobias Escher presented results of the CIMT research on AI-supported evaluation of participation contributions and discussed further possibilities for using artificial intelligence to support public participation with experts from research as well as participation practice. It became clear that the practitioners see potential not only in the evaluation (output), but also in the activation of participants (input) and in the support of interactions (throughput) in participation processes. Nevertheless, these potentials face challenges and risks, including the adequate technical implementation and ensuring data protection and non-discrimination.

The workshop was organised by Dr Dennis Frieß and Anke Stoll and took place from 8 to 10 February 2023 in Bochum. Further information can be found on the website of the Düsseldorf Institute for Internet and Democracy.

Socio-spatial justice through public participation?

In this presentation at the AESOP (Assosiation of European Schools of Planning) annual Congress in 2022, Laura Mark, Katharina Huseljić and Tobias Escher introduced a framework of distributive socio-spatial justice and the way consultation procedures can contribute, before evaluating the case study Elbchaussee in Hamburg regarding socio-spatial justice, using qualitative and quantitative results. 

Abstract

Our current transport system exhibits significant socio-spatial injustices as it has both major negative environmental effects and structurally disadvantages certain socio-economic groups. Planning processes increasingly include elements of public participation, often linked to the hope of better understanding and integrating different mobility needs into the planning process. However, so far there is little knowledge on whether public participation results indeed in more socio-spatial justice.

To approach this question, we focus on socio-spatial justice as distributive justice and investigate how well consultative planning procedures do actually lead to measures that both contribute to sustainability (i.e. reduce or redistribute negative external effects) and cater for the needs of disadvantaged groups (e.g. those with low income or education, women and disabled people). To this end, we have investigated in detail the case study of the reconstruction of the Elbchaussee, a representative main road of citywide importance in the district of Altona in Hamburg, Germany. We are drawing on both qualitative and quantitative data including expert interviews and public surveys.  

We first show that the process did result in planning measures that contribute slightly to ecological sustainability. Second, in particular through improving the situation for pedestrians and cyclists as well as the quality of stay, the measures should contribute to more justice for some groups but this is recognized only by non-male groups. Beyond this there are no effects for people with low income, low education, those with mobility restrictions or with particular mobility needs often associated with these groups. Overall, we conclude that the consultative planning process provides only a small contribution to socio-spatial justice and we discuss potential explanations.

Key Findings

  • The consultative planning process as a whole resulted in measures that contribute slightly to socio-spatial justice, since they support the transition to more sustainable mobility and will benefit some disadvantages groups, though both to a limited degree.
  • We find that the consultation procedure had no significant influence on the policy. In terms of socio-spatial justice, no positive effects can be traced back to the consultation procedure. Notably, those that participated in the consultation did indeed report less satisfaction with the measures.
  • We trace those limited contributions back to some general features of consultation and the current planning system, but also find that in the case study the scope of possible influence was very limited due to external restrictions and power imbalances.

Publication

We are working on a publication for a peer-reviewed journal. The publication will be linked here as soon as it is published.

New working group on mobility, accessibility and social inclusion at the ARL – Academy for Territorial Development in the Leibniz Association

We are pleased that Laura Mark is part of the aforementioned working group and can discuss our research with colleagues. Practitioners and researchers meet regularly in the working group to discuss various topics related to mobility and social inclusion. The working group started in the middle of 2021 and the content-related work is now taking more and more shape: Areas of interface with our research include the question of procedural justice in planning processes for the mobility transition – who participates and whose voices are heard? How should planning and participation processes for a sustainable mobility transition be designed in the future in order to include everyone? Here we will report on the further work and publications and events that develop within the context of this working group!